New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 13 March 2015
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-890-52063
SHOP
GMO Registry, Inc.

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result
Did Not Prevail
Thank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in the
Applicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

6 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

Earned00336Achievable
4
4
4
4
16

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
0/4 Point(s)1-A Delineation
0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined by the application did
not meet the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria)of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), as the community defined in the application does not demonstratesufficient delineation, organization, or pre-existence. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points
under criterion 1-A: Delineation.

Page 1

Delineation
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear, straightforward
membership definition1 and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplication) among its members.
The membership definition articulated in the application is as follows:
The target community for .SHOP is business entities or organizations that deploy commercial
activities in an online or offline environment or provide information in relation thereto over theInternet. Their common goal is to sell products and services to third parties, using the Internet as adirect or indirect sales channel.
Under .SHOP, only those who engage or intend to engage in commercial activities qualify to registerdomain names, if they meet requirements that – once finalized – will be laid down by the Applicant.
The application states that the community it is committing to serve “is a broad and heterogeneouscommunity not defined by any geographical borders, limited to certain cultures or form of trade,” but statesthat the “community can be delineated more specifically” by the following parameters:- community members deploy commercial activities with a certain continuity, whereas most Internet
users only sporadically engage in commercial transactions, mainly as buyers (demand side);- in some countries, to deploy commercial activities, registration with an official register is required
prior to or shortly after engaging in such activities; and, in some countries, a VAT or sales tax
number, or equivalent thereof is also required;- those engaging in ecommerce related activities have 1 or more websites on which they offer
products or services etc. Internet users in general do not usually have transactional websites, and use
the Internet only for trading in their own name and for their own purpose. Also, generally, Internet
users are not engaged in marketing activities or promotional campaigns for products or services;- in some countries, specific commercial activities are regulated by an official or non-official body.
According to the AGB, “Delineation relates to the membership of a community, where a clear and straightforward membership definition scores high, while an unclear, dispersed or unbound definition scores low.”
The membership definition for the proposed .SHOP community is dispersed and unbound. The application
states that, “members must deploy commercial activities with a certain continuity,” but what qualifies as“certain continuity”, a key element of the community’s delineation, is insufficiently detailed in theapplication. Moreover, the applicant seeks to delineate some of its members by way of their “commercial
activities” being “regulated by an official or non-official body” but this proposed delineating measure lacks
the clarity and specificity that would adequately delimit any subset of entities. This unclear requirement
furthermore only applies “in some countries” and in others it is unclear whether any “official” or “nonofficial” regulation would help to delineate membership at all. In sum, the application fails to articulate withadequate precision attributes that clearly and straight-forwardly define the membership of the proposed
community. Instead, the application materials demonstrate that the membership of the community is
unbound and dispersed.
According to the AGB’s second Delineation criterion, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a merecommonality of interest” and there should be “an awareness and recognition of a community among its
members.” The community as defined in the application does not demonstrate an awareness and recognition
among its members. The application materials and further research provide no substantive evidence of what
the AGB calls “cohesion” – that is, that the various members of the community as defined by the application
are “united or form a whole” (Oxford Dictionaries).
The application cites a “common goal” of community members “to sell products and services… using theInternet” but this does not meet the AGB’s standard of cohesion. While any person or organization engaged
1 According to the AGB, “an unclear, dispersed, or unbound definition scores low” (ICANN Applicant Guidebook

4.2.3)
Page 2

in business has an implicit goal to sell a good or service, this goal – or this “commonality of interest”– does
not constitute participation in, awareness of or recognition of a community among its members. The lack ofrequired cohesion stems from the defined community’s breadth, encompassing all entities that engage or
intend to engage in online commercial activities as sellers. This definition is (1) too broad a delineating
measure and (2) does not ensure that the various entities defined cohere in any way with one another, despite
their engaging in commercial activities. The community as defined in the application, according to its own
estimates, includes from hundreds of thousands to millions of retailers and service providers. However, theapplication provides no information regarding awareness and recognition among the proposed community’s
members. Furthermore, based on the Panel’s research, various representative entities in this cohort do notshow an awareness or recognition of the several other parts of the applicant’s proposed community, whether
by way of interaction or an explicit statement of cohesion.2
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
According to the AGB, "organized" implies that there is at least one entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity, with documented evidence of community activities.” There must exist, therefore, at least one
organization that encompasses entities in all the fields of business included in the application’s membershipdefinition, including but not limited to the examples cited in the previous section. That entity must also havedocumented evidence of community activities. Based on information provided in the application materials
and the Panel’s research, there is no entity that organizes the community defined in the application, in all thebreadth of categories explicitly and implicitly defined.
The community as defined in the application is dispersed geographically and across a wide array of businesstypes and activities, including all business entities or organizations that deploy commercial activities in an
online or offline environment. According to the application:
There is no worldwide coordinating body representing the entire community, though there areorganizations and associations related to the industry at regional, national, state, and city levels, suchas Chambers of Commerce, professional employer organizations, etc. The targeted community
members are globally distributed, with organized activities undertaken by various organizations,stakeholder groups, etc.
Globally, various organizations represent the interests of businesses, including the International
Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Business Europe, the International Fair Trade Association, etc. On anational or regional level, community members are organizing themselves in an attempt to promoteuse of the Internet in commercial activities, and establish trust in ecommerce.
The application therefore acknowledges that there is no entity mainly dedicated to the community as definedby the application. The ICC, for example, although it represents businesses of all sizes in more than 120
countries, has a remit to work with and represent entities which themselves conduct international or crossborder business and/or have an active involvement in international economic and business issues. The ICC
with its members aims to “shape rules and policies that stimulate international trade and investment”3. Thismission does not represent, for example, the many entities included in the application’s community definition
that have no ties to international business, including individually owned and operated businesses that are notmembers of the ICC and whose business is not served by the work of the ICC. Other organizations with alarge geographic remit, those cited in the application and others in the Panel’s review, are similarly limited in
2 The Panel acknowledges that an exhaustive review of all proposed community member entities is not possible and has

reviewed a number of representative examples to determine awareness and recognition among proposed community
members.
3 http://www.iccwbo.org/worldwide-membership/members/members/
Page 3the type of businesses to which they cater.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed) and must display an awareness andrecognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application was not active prior to September 2007. According to section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, the CPE process is conceived to
identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue
priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a obtain a sought-after genericword as a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a “community” construed to obtain a sought-aftergeneric word as a gTLD string, and that the application is attempting to organize the various groups
mentioned in the documentation through a gTLD. The proposed community therefore could not have been
active prior to the above date (although many of its constituent parts were active).
According to the application,
Community activities include, but are not limited to, buying, selling, exchanging, trading and leasingof goods, services, information, or any other property on the Internet, or activities of a similar
nature. Since the community is not represented by a single organization, there is no one
establishment date.
The application refers to several organizations that existed prior to 2007, including organizations that haveendorsed its application and others that represent parts of the defined community. However, the fact thatthese organizations were active prior to 2007 does not mean that these organizations were active as acommunity prior to 2007, as required by the AGB guidelines.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not fulfill the requirements forpre-existence.
1-B Extension
0/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the community as identified in the application did not meet the criterion for
Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as the application
did not fulfill the requirements for size, nor demonstrate the longevity of the community. The application
received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size
and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of considerable size. The community for .SHOP as defined in
the application is large both in terms of geographical reach and number of members. According to theapplicant:Given its nature, it is difficult to demonstrate community size: statistics vary from hundreds ofthousands to millions of entities who sell products and services using the Internet. On a daily basis,new businesses appear, and existing merchants go out of business…
According to a recent report by EURid, the registry operator for .EU, 26.5% of domain names intheir sample pointed to websites used for business purposes…
If we extrapolate this result to the total number of domain names registered in the world, andPage 4

conservatively estimate the number of community members, the result is that currently about 40-50
million websites exist with commercial characteristics.
However, as previously noted, the community as defined in the application does not show evidence of“cohesion” among its members, as required by the AGB.4 Therefore, it fails the second criterion for Size.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application meets only one of the two criteria
required.
Longevity
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application does not demonstrate longevity. According to section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, the CPE process is conceived to identify qualified
community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue priority to an
application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a get a sought-after generic word as a gTLD
string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a proposed community construed to obtain a soughtafter generic word as a gTLD. Moreover, the applicant appears to be attempting to use the gTLD to organize
the various groups noted in the application documentation, as opposed to applying on behalf of an alreadyorganized and cohesive community. As previously stated, the community as defined in the application does
not have awareness and recognition among its members. Failing this kind of “cohesion,” the community
defined by the application does not meet the AGB’s standards for a community. Therefore, as a construed
community, the proposed community cannot meet the AGB's requirements for longevity.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.
Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
0/4 Point(s)2-A Nexus
0/3 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Nexus as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The string does not identify or match the name of thecommunity as defined in the application, nor is it a well-known short-form or abbreviation of thecommunity. The application received a score of 0 out of 3 points under criterion 2-A: Nexus.
To receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the name of the community or
be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name. To receive a partial score for Nexus (of2 out of 3 points; 1 point not possible), the applied-for string must identify the community. “Identify” meansthat the applied-for string should closely describe the community or the community members, without overreaching substantially beyond the community.
The application for .SHOP defines the community as “business entities or organizations that deploy
commercial activities in an online or offline environment… using the Internet as a direct or indirect sales
channel.” According to the application documentation:
The target community does not have one “name”, members have several common characteristics
and features, and their activities (and industry) are generally referred to as “online shopping”,“ecommerce”, “ebusiness”, etc…
[SHOP] is a commonplace word for a location – in the real or virtual world – where commercial
4As stated previously, according to the AGB, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a mere commonality ofinterest…There should be: (a) an awareness and recognition of a community among its members…” Failing suchqualities, the AGB’s requirements for community establishment are not met.
Page 5

activities are deployed, products or services are offered for sale and can be bought…
The applied-for string does not match the name of the community as defined in the application and theapplication itself cites several other names (“online shopping,” “ecommerce,” and “ebussiness”) that are
applied to the proposed community members as defined in its application. According to the AGB, matchmeans “the established name by which the community is commonly known by others.” The application’sreference to several other names by which its proposed community members are known indicates, therefore,
the applied-for string “SHOP” does not match the name of the community as the AGB requires for a fullscore.
The applied-for string furthermore does not identify the defined community, as the AGB requires for a partial
score, because the applicant is over-reaching in its use of the applied-for string “SHOP” in its reference to all
the members of the community it describes. The applied-for string does identify some entities that theapplication intends to include in its proposed community. For example, the application cites as an example ofa community member The Body Shop “retail business”, an international chain of over 2,000 stores.
However, the application does not offer any other examples that are identified by the applied-for string“SHOP”. In particular, it does not cite any examples of “organizations that deploy commercial activities” butwhose names do not include the word “shop” or whose places of business are not physical storefronts where“retail business” occurs, as in the case of The Body Shop. The application similarly does not offer any reason
why such entities, even in the absence of any examples, might be considered to be identified by the string.
The Panel’s research has included a broad review of publicly available information related to sellers ofservices, including legal, media, consulting, and financial5. Many of these entities are not identified by theword “SHOP”, which, as the application acknowledges, “is a commonplace word for a location – in the realor virtual world – where commercial activities are deployed, products or services are offered for sale and canbe bought.” For example, a commercial bank is a business entity that deploys commercial activities (e.g.
banking services, insurance services, retirement investments, etc.) in an online and offline environment, andalso provides information in relation thereto over the Internet. A commercial bank sells services to third
parties, using the Internet as a direct or indirect sales channel, thereby placing it within the community
proposed by the application6. However, the string “SHOP” does not identify a commercial bank. According
to the AGB, in order for the string “SHOP” to identify a commercial bank, the string must “closely describe”
it. However, following the Panel’s review of online and other documented usages of the word “shop”,
neither the word “bank” nor any of the unique functions of a commercial bank are described by “shop”.
Furthermore, the websites of commercial banks, and the mission statements of associations of commercial
banks that were reviewed by the Panel do not use the word “shop” to describe their business. Therefore, theapplied-for string “SHOP” does not identify this sub-set of proposed community members. Given the sizeof the commercial banking sector7, this sub-set of entities not identified by the applied-for string issubstantial.
The Panel determined that while “SHOP” does identify some businesses providing goods and services, theapplied-for string does not match or identify the community or the community members as defined in theapplication. It therefore does not meet the requirements for Nexus.

5 The application states, “The target community for .SHOP is business entities or organizations that deploy commercial

activities in an online or offline environment or provide information in relation thereto over the Internet. Their common
goal is to sell products and services to third parties, using the Internet as a direct or indirect sales channel.” Thus entities
such as those included in the Panel’s research are presumed to fall within the proposed community membership.
6 As discussed above, the parameters for inclusion in this proposed community fail the AGB’s requirements for a clearlydelineated community (see section 1: Delineation). For the purposes of evaluating Nexus, however, and so that a scoreof 0 in one section does not preclude the objective scoring of another section, the Panel proceeds as though some basic
cohort of membership is delineated, even if, as is the case with this application, the bounds are unclear.
7 In the US alone there are 5,705 commercial banks each with assets totaling US$13.5 trillion. See:
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/statistical/stats/
Page 6

2-B Uniqueness
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Uniqueness as specified in section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus.
The application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string must have no other significant meaning beyond
identifying the community described in the application and it must also score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The string
as defined in the application does not demonstrate uniqueness as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on
Nexus and is therefore ineligible for a score of 1 for Uniqueness. This is based on the Panel’s determinationthat the applied-for string “.SHOP” does not identify the community defined by the application according to
AGB standards. Therefore, since the string does not identify the community, it cannot be said to “have noother significant meaning beyond identifying the community” (emphasis added, AGB). The Panel determined thatthe applied-for string does not satisfy the condition to fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness.
Criterion #3: Registration Policies
3/4 Point(s)3-A Eligibility
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application meets the criterion for Eligibility as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as eligibility is restricted to community members. The
application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. According to the application:
The Applicant intends to put in place the following eligibility requirements for registrants in .SHOP:
In order to qualify for registering a domain name in the .SHOP TLD, the registrant must be abusiness entity or organization that deploys commercial activities in an online or offline
environment, i.e. offering for sale and selling products or services on a more than occasional basis,or provide information in relation thereto over the Internet.
.SHOP domain name registrations will also be made available to business entities or organizations
that currently do not deploy commercial activities, but that have expressed intention to engage in theactivities within one year following the registration of a .SHOP domain name.
The application therefore demonstrates adherence to the AGB’s requirement by restricting domain
registration to individuals who are members of the community defined by the application. The Paneldetermined that the application satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for Eligibility.
3-B Name Selection
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application meets the criterion for Name Selection as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria). The application provides evidence that the name selection rules
included are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD. The
application therefore received a score of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
To fulfill the requirements for Name Selection, the registration policies for name selection for registrants
must be consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. According to theapplication:
Registrants will be entitled to register domain names that are identical or similar to their current or
future trademark, business name, trade name, business identifier, name of business entity ororganization, names under which they are commonly known, slogans, acronyms, etc., including
combinations thereof, in the .SHOP gTLD.
The application therefore demonstrates adherence to the AGB’s requirement of name selection rules that areconsistent with the application’s community-based purpose, which “is to establish a clear, unambiguous andeasy to remember online identity for the community and promote a defined, meaningful, and secure
Page 7

namespace in order to contribute to the further development of the community and the (commercial)activities of its members.”
3-C Content and Use
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application meets the criterion for Content and Use as specified in section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria). The application provides evidence that the content and use
rules included are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD. The
application therefore received a score of 1 point under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies for content and use must be
consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. According to theapplication:
a. Registered .SHOP domain names must be used for commercial activities in an online or offline
environment or to provide information in relation thereto over the internet; orb. Registered .SHOP domain names must be intended to be used for commercial activities in an
online or offline environment or to provide information in relation thereto over the internet.
Registering a .SHOP domain name solely for the purpose of selling, exchanging, trading, or leasing
such domain name shall be deemed as inappropriate use or intent, and will be prohibited by theregistry operator.
The application therefore demonstrates adherence to the AGB’s requirement of content and use rules thatare consistent with the application’s community-based purpose, which “is to establish a clear, unambiguousand easy to remember online identity for the community and promote a defined, meaningful, and securenamespace in order to contribute to the further development of the community and the (commercial)activities of its members.”
3-D Enforcement
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application does not meet the criterion for Enforcement as specified in
section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The application provides specific
enforcement measures but does not include a coherent and appropriate appeals mechanisms. The application
received a score of 0 points under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals
mechanisms. The applicant outlined policies that include specific enforcement measures constituting a
coherent set. The applicant outlines a comprehensive list of investigation procedures, and circumstances inwhich the registry is entitled to suspend domain names. The application does not, however, make reference
to an appeals process. It refers to “a grace period within which the registrant needs to demonstrate that
registration and⁄or use of the domain name is compliant with” the policies that have allegedly been violated,but not an appeals mechanism. The Panel determined that the application satisfies only one of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement and therefore scores 0 points.
Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
3/4 Point(s)4-A Support
1/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for Support specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as there was documented support from at least one
group with relevance. The application received a score of 1 out of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support.
To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or must have documented support from, therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. “Recognized” means that the institution(s)/organization(s), through membershipor otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of the community as awhole. To receive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documented support from at least one
Page 8

group with relevance. “Relevance” refers to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed by theapplication.
The Panel determined that the applicant was not the recognized community institution(s)/member
organization(s), nor did it have documented authority to represent the community, or documented support
from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s). A recognized community institution
or member organization is one which not only (1) represents the entirety of the community as defined by theapplication (in all its breadth of categories as described in Delineation), but is also (2) recognized by the samecommunity as its representative. No such organization among the applicant’s supporters demonstrates thekind of structure required to be a “recognized” organization, as per AGB guidelines, and the Panel has
determined that no such organization exists. However, the applicant possesses documented support from atleast one group with relevance and this documentation contained a description of the process and rationale
used in arriving at the expression of support, as required by the AGB. The Community Priority Evaluation
Panel determined that the applicant partially satisfies the requirements for Support. See also the table in thefollowing subsection for a summary of all pieces of support and opposition.
4-B Opposition
2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Opposition
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as theapplication did not receive any relevant opposition. The application received the maximum score of 2 points
under criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition of
relevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, at
most, one group of non-negligible size.
The application received one letter of opposition, determined not to be relevant, as it was (1) not from
communities either explicitly mentioned in the application nor from those with an implicit association tosuch communities, and/or (2) made for a purpose incompatible with competition objectives. The
Community Priority Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant fully satisfies the requirements for
Opposition. The table below summarizes the review and verification results for all pieces of support andopposition related to this application for the applied-for string “SHOP”:8
Total

Total Validfor
Verification

Verification
Attempted

Successfully
Verified

Comments

1 (notsupport or
opposition)

0

0

0

Attachments to20(f)5 (allsupport)5

5

2

Correspondence

1(opposition)

0

0

0

7

5

5

2

Grand Total

Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the AGB or the Registry Agreement. For updated
application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the AGB and the ICANN New
gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.

8 Details and procedures regarding the review and verification of pieces of support and opposition can be found on the

ICANN CPE website: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe
Page 9